Georgia State University Georgia State University

ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University

English Theses Department of English

11-21-2008

A Rhetorical Analysis of an American University's Diversity Policy A Rhetorical Analysis of an American University's Diversity Policy

Adam C. Faust

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/english_theses

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Faust, Adam C., "A Rhetorical Analysis of an American University's Diversity Policy." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2008. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/english_theses/51

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gsu.edu.

A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY’S DIVERSITY POLICY

by

Adam Faust

Under the Direction of Mary Hocks

ABSTRACT

This thesis focuses on the guidelines that university governing bodies have

adopted in order to regulate the actions of its student population and the factors that

influenced their decisions. The evaluation of these guidelines is not a judicial analysis,

but an analysis of the rhetorical aspects associated with the guidelines.

The thesis contends that the current rhetoric of diversity on American college

campuses, while drafted with the best of intentions, fails due to the limitations that it

places on its students, the morality argument in which it draws strength, and the

increase in differences, not acceptance, that it creates. The research utilizes specific

examples of problems that are a direct result of University diversity policies and how

they create a prison like structure in which those attending the University must adhere

to the uncontested rules of the authority.

INDEX WORDS: Diversity, Prison, Morality, University diversity policy, Authority

A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY’S DIVERSITY POLICY

by

Adam Faust

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in the College of Arts and Sciences

Georgia State University

2008

Copyright by

Adam Faust

2008

A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY’S DIVERSITY POLICY

by

Adam Faust

Committee Chair: Mary Hocks

Committee: Marti Singer

George Pullman

Electronic Version Approved:

Office of Graduate Studies

College of Arts and Sciences

Georgia State University

December 2008

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES vii CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Tyler and the Lesson on Diversity 1 The Moral of the Story 3 Purpose of Research 5 Suggested Contribution to Knowledge 6

2 . DEFINING DIVERSITY AND ITS GO ALS 8

A Closer Look at the Rhetoric of University Diversity Policies 10

A Failed University Model 17

3. THE BANKING CONCEPT OF EDUCATION AND THE FALLACY OF ARGUMENT

23

Diversity Policy Shaped Through Morality 26

Diversity and the Margins 34

Margins within the University Diversity Organizations 41 Enforcement of the Ideologies of Oppression 43 The Enforcement of Diversity Limits Freedom of Speech 44 A Mainstream Look at Diversity Education 46 The Failure of Diversity Policies in Creating Diversity 49

4. CONCLUSION 51

REFERENCES 57

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Campus Population 33 Figure 1.2: California Population 33

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the American university systems, a common practice can be seen –

the creation and enforcement of diversity policies by both the university heads and the

university faculty in an effort to create a harmonious campus environment: a campus in

which all students are seen by one another as equals. However, while the crafters of

these policies may have the best intentions in mind, for many students these intentions

may appear to be lost in translation. Students are forced to accept certain elements of

diversity, but not given the proper method to truly understand the things that make our

student body diverse. This method of forcing diversity allows many key components

necessary to implement true acceptance to be lost, and in fact, can hinder the ongoing

process of diversity acceptance, which can result in students leaving the university

without diversity compassion, but instead repeating the practice of forced pseudo-

diversity. The analysis in this thesis will research and discuss how this occurs and the

ways that the rhetoric of the diversity policy shapes how it is implemented.

Tyler and the Lesson on Diversity

A few months ago my roommate was babysitting his ten-year-old cousin Tyler

(not his real name) for the weekend while the boy’s parents were out of town. I’d never

met Tyler and I’m not used to having kids around, so I was trying to do my best to fill the

awkward moments we had to spend alone with idle chit-chat about school, sports, and

video games. I expected his answers to the school-related questions to be about gym

class, recess, or how he hates homework—all the things that I thought about when I

2

was a ten-year-old. Surprisingly, his frustration with school wasn’t related to

complications with deciphering fractions, it was about diversity.

Tyler and his classmates were instructed to sit on the floor in the back of the

classroom and quietly wait for the teacher until she finished with her daily preparation.

The area that the students were instructed to sit in was barely large enough to

accommodate all of them so Tyler told his classmates to sit Indian style in order to

squeeze into the cramped area. The teacher overheard his instruction, and angrily

asked him to repeat what he had just said. Thinking that his teacher’s anger spawned

from his failure to comply with her instruction to be silent, he reluctantly, in an apologetic

tone, restated his comment. The teacher then proceeded to chastise him for his

insensitive comment and ordered him to report to the principle’s office. As punishment

for his remark the principle denied him one recess session, and called his parents to

inform them of his rude behavior.

Understandably, Tyler didn’t comprehend why he received such harsh

punishment for what he believed was an innocent comment. His instruction to sit Indian

style wasn’t a malicious remark in order to embarrass anyone, it was said in order to

comply with the teacher’s instructions and make his classmates, friends, as comfortable

as possible. Instead of being rewarded for his efforts to aid all of his fellow class mates

through his actions, he was scolded and publicly humiliated because of the words he

chose to use in his instructions. Shouldn’t the act of helping or wanting to help others

around you, especially when your invitation is inclusive to all persons, be rewarded

regardless of the way you phrase your advice? I understand that stating to sit Indian

style may be perceived as culturally insensitive, but does a ten-year-old understand

3

this? And, shouldn’t have Tyler’s teacher acknowledged his good deed, while

explaining rationally why next time he should choose a different phrase? It shocks me

that Tyler’s teacher chose to teach him that his comment was inappropriate through

such harsh punishment when his intentions demonstrated a desire to help his

classmates.

The Moral of the Story

The harsh punishment that Tyler received sparked my curiosity as to why the

teacher felt justified in her actions. I speculate the teacher believed her actions

justifiable because her intent was to eliminate prejudice and promote cultural

understanding in her classroom; however, I’m concerned her methods for initiating

change defeated her goals. This concern sparked a desire to research the preceding

events in her life that led her to the conclusion that it’s acceptable to educate through

force rather than through compassion and understanding.

I quickly recognized that my desire to research one teacher’s life history cannot

accurately represent society as a whole because of the plethora of other factors that

could have potentially led her to act as she did, and an investigation of such small

scope would prove fruitless; therefore, I decided to investigate the location where

teaching professionals acquire the knowledge pertinent to the instruction of America’s

youth—the college campus. The college campus not only provides teachers with

academic knowledge necessary for teaching, but it also serves as an “expression,

projection, and extension of our personal attitudes” (Dewey 227). As Dewey suggests,

and many of us have experienced, our time spent in college drastically shaped our

thoughts, beliefs, and values. However, if the pedagogy that the university environment

4

is built around is flawed, then our experiences too could have foundations that are also

flawed. As Paulo Freire, states, “…human activity consists of action and

reflection…Human activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action (125).

Freire’s words point to a key issue that is the result of an environment of flawed

pedagogy. If the diversity policy’s pedagogy is in fact flawed, then so must the policy

itself be flawed. Students, then, are educated under this umbrella of diversity that is

lacking true substance, yet these are the guidelines that they have learned and many

have accepted as the correct way to promote diversity. As part of the activity of their

daily lives once outside of the university, students must reflect back on the policies

instilled in them during their education, and then act either in accordance with these

policies or against them. If the policies themselves were not properly architected and

executed, pulling from the lessons of these policies can result in actions that, while

meant with good intention, do not aid in creating diversity.

Additionally, in order for a policy to oversee human activity, in this case

acceptance, the policy and further more the policy makers must reflect on why the

policy was founded, what it was meant to achieve, the goals it has met, and even more

importantly the goals it is not meeting or even the problems that it is creating, and then

take action to correct any issues or enhance the positives. Tyler’s teacher reacted in an

opposite manner, by acting first on only the words that Tyler used, but not reflecting on

the overall result he was trying to achieve. Had she reflected first, as Freire suggests,

she may have realized that Tyler’s action showed that he wanted to aid others and

create a comfortable environment for all his fellow students. Instead, Tyler now has a

memory that he will later reflect on, in which his desire to help others was punished

5

because of his language. This has the potential to cause him to simply avoid situations

where he has the opportunity to aid others around him for fear that his approach may be

wrong. So, it becomes this fear that prevents Tyler from saying or doing anything, and

this lack of action is masked as diversity harmony – the lack of reflection and action

becomes the driving factor behind how the lesson Tyler learned creates a perceived air

of diversity acceptance. Thus, the diversity that is learned is not based on acceptance,

though this is what diversity policies mean to create, but rather on fear of saying the

wrong thing, and where no one is able to speak freely, no one is able to understand the

views of another – no reflection can occur. Understanding this relationship between a

necessity of human activity and how the flawed pedagogy of the university diversity

policy stifles this key part of understanding the environment and others around us, I

began to understand the perceptions that Tyler’s teacher formed about diversity and the

reasons that might have lead to her harsh reaction to Tyler’s comment.

Purpose of Research

The complexity of an American college campus forces me to narrow the area in

which I search for an answer to my question of why Tyler’s teacher felt justified in her

actions. I speak of campus complexity in terms of the wide range of activities and

influences that potentially impact the opinions and values that students form while

attending college. The impossibility of locating one particular influence in the midst of

the whirlwind of complexity at an American university, and the possibility for

unwarranted finger-pointing toward a particular individual led me to the governing body

of college campuses. My research focused on the guidelines that these bodies have

adopted in order to regulate the actions of its student population and the factors that

6

influenced their decisions. The evaluation of these guidelines is not a judicial analysis,

but an analysis of the rhetorical aspects associated with the guidelines. This means I

will first take a closer look at the language of the diversity policies and how the language

used is an intentional decision aimed for specific affects. Further, I will investigate the

way these diversity policies are applied to show the connection between poor rhetoric in

the craftsmanship of the policy and the policy ultimately falling short of its goals.

My intention is to find information that will illustrate that the current rhetoric of

diversity on American college campuses, while drafted with the best of intentions, fails

due to the limitations that it places on its students, the morality argument in which it

draws strength, and the increase in differences, not acceptance, that it creates. My

research will lead to an analysis that will contend that the rhetoric of diversity eliminates

any freedom of expression that contradicts it thereby defying the goal that it seeks to

achieve – the acceptance of ideas from all spectrums.

Further, my research will utilize specific examples of problems that are a direct

result of University diversity policies. It will show the way in which diversity policies

founded on flawed pedagogy create a prison like structure in which those attending the

University must adhere to the uncontested rules of the authority, in this case the

governing University bylaws and policies. Finally, my research will show how all

persons under these faulty systems are forced to be pseudo-equals by hiding the

diversity of the groups rather than embracing it in a real way.

Suggested Contribution to Knowledge

The resulting essay from my research will aim to demonstrate that the rhetoric of

diversity is equally as stifling as the rhetoric of oppression and that both wish to force

7

control because they demand compliance through force or fear and not willing

acceptance. Further, neither truly achieves their goal because they do not examine the

subjects they wish to change, but rather determine the environment they want to create

and impose rules which they determine will leave no other choice but to the creation of

the environment which was being sought after. The benefit to this demonstration will,

hopefully, serve as an eye-opener for the policy makers and those who are required to

follow the policies; the policies are flawed and need restructuring to better serve their

intended purpose—free expression of ideas and overall harmony. My hope is that my

argument can serve as a catalyst for change in the way diversity policies are drafted

and enforced. My ultimate goal is to offer suggestions as to how we, society, may

overcome our obstacles to work together to create a more conscientious campus with

something as seemingly simple as appropriate rhetoric.

8

CHAPTER 2

DEFINING DIVERSITY AND ITS GOALS

The term diversity is sometimes perceived as a controversial, uncomfortable and

troublesome word. The term sparks controversy amidst many groups, but often the term

is misunderstood because it is used with ambiguous meaning. For example, is diversity

referring to a mix of African-American and White-Americans, a mix of males and

females, a mix of Christians and Muslims, or something else? The answer, it appears,

is that diversity can refer to all those examples and more, and that the meaning of

diversity can vary not only by the group it is being applied to but also by the user that is

applying it. The ambiguity depends on the context, in which it is used, or the individual

or organization’s demographics, i.e. ideological beliefs, social influences, and even the

geographic area. The term diversity may evoke concerns regarding race, gender,

religion, or sexual orientation depending on these characteristics. Typically, diversity is

thought of as “mixing” people with differing cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds in a

single environment. Diversity in this essay extends beyond blending people, but refers

to willing acceptance of all people regardless of any differentiating characteristic. This

viewpoint is not a new definition; however, the very nature of diversity is not a

“traditional,” “familiar” (Aleman 14) belief, and contributes to the controversy associated

with it.

After all, interactions with anything unfamiliar force people to question long-held

beliefs, and the fear of an unidentified goal adds to the fuel of the controversial fire

surrounding diversity. The re-evaluation of long-held beliefs has now become a

ubiquitous part of academic life, and in recent years diversity has transitioned from a

9

term regarded as idealist into a defining principle that shapes policy and governs

individuals’ actions on college campuses across the United States.

Universities devised strict diversity policies in order to define the goals they

hoped to accomplish through diversity, and achieve their goal of community growth. In

Diversity on Campus Arthur Levine defines the goal of diversity on college campuses as

one that aims “to legitimize both the intellectual and emotional aspects of diverse

cultures in academic and campus life in teaching, research, and service [, thereby

achieving] equity among diverse cultures and a symbiosis among them” (334). The

symbiosis enables the college “community” to advance through each individual’s

growth. The belief is if the quality of life improves for one student, then it will improve for

another, and eventually improve the entire community. This snowball effect results from

improved morale and self-esteem that the students gain from the harmonious

atmosphere around campus.

The country’s university campuses recognize that in order to provide their

students with the best possible education the campus environment must provide

stability, support, and encouragement to all students regardless of race, color, religion,

or sex. In addition, universities understand “the diverse gifts that individuals bring to

groups are [ . . .] favorable because they expand the capacities for individual growth,

and consequently, the continued growth of the community itself” (Aleman 11).

Ultimately, it can be concluded that diversity, when used as a doctrine, is defined

as an idea that aims to breed acceptance for all people from any different group, be it

race, sex, religion, socioeconomic level, or any other characteristic that can be seen as

a way to segregate one group from another. The goals of diversity are to harmonize

10

these different groups so that everyone feels as though they are an important part of the

whole, an invaluable part of the community, and that no one is outside of that communal

group, and diversity strives to achieve this by using the ideals detailed above – with the

fundamental principle that if life improves for one, it improves for all.

A Closer Look at the Rhetoric of University Diversity Policies

In order to determine where the rhetoric of the diversity policy falls short, we must

first take a closer look at the language of the diversity polices commonly found on

college campuses. While I have looked at several differing polices from campuses

across the country, I have chosen three to examine more closely, as I have found these

to be a fair representation of the many other policies I have reviewed. These policies

are those of the University of Georgia, Kansas State University, and Georgia State

University.

Looking first at the University of Georgia, one can see that the University of

Georgia defines the acts that will be considered discriminatory harassment as follows:

Unwelcome verbal or physical conduct which is directed at a person

because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual

orientation, age, veteran status, or disability, when:

1. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably

interfering with the individual’s work or educational performance;

2. Such conduct creates or has the intention of creating an

intimidating, hostile, or offensive working and/or learning

environment; or

11

3. Such conduct unreasonably interferes with one’s ability to

participate in or benefit from an educational program or activity

(UGA, Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy).

In this definition, it is important to look closely at the language that the definition uses to

show what exactly discriminatory harassment is. First, the language contains limits in

some instances but not others. For example, it lists specific criteria that must be the

subject of the “unwelcome verbal or physical conduct.” This begs the question, how

can this diversity policy be effective if within its own language it is limiting those persons

that can be subject to discrimination. In effect, the way the language is used in this

definition creates already an instance of discrimination toward those who are diverse for

other reasons, such as class or physical appearance.

Looking further into the policy, one can see that the language of the definition

also points to the vagueness of what constitutes discrimination. Both the first and

second sub points define these discriminatory acts as action with purpose or actions

that create a certain type of result. This is a clear correlation to the reaction of Tyler’s

teacher. Tyler obviously did not have the purpose of creating a situation of

discriminatory harassment, but to his teacher, that is the environment that his comment

created. Are we then meant to believe that we can harass another without the intention

of doing so? If this is the case, even the most conscientious minded diversity advocate

could unknowingly be at risk of inflicting discriminatory harassment upon another.

Finally, the characterizing factor that the policy uses to determine whether

discriminatory harassment has occurred is whether the student’s ability to benefit from

the educational program has been hindered. This again is an instance where the

12

language of the policy is creating limits. The protection of the policy, one could infer

from this definition, only extends to cases where the harassment is so severe that the

student is unable to continue participating in the academic program. How, then, can

this policy create diversity acceptance, if there is a gray area for lesser acts of

discrimination? The danger is that students may take this to mean that discrimination

has only occurred if the effects are so severe that the victim of the harassment is having

their quality of life hindered, when in fact, discrimination can occur in small ways as well,

and for true diversity acceptance to exist, even the smallest of discriminations would

have to be eliminated.

At Kansas State University, the diversity policy shares many similarities, while

also containing some very marked differences in the overall tone. For example:

We affirm the value of human diversity for community. We confront and

reject all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including those based on

race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious or

political beliefs, economic status, or any other differences that have led to

misunderstandings, hostility, and injustice (Kansas State).

We see here that the Kansas diversity policy shares the same limiting language as the

University of Georgia policy; however, the manners in which the ideas of the policy are

presented are markedly different. In this policy, the authors have chosen an approach

of using action words such as affirm, confront, and reject. This tactic of language

presents an air of power in the policy, affirming the authority of the university, while at

the same time introducing the need for the policy in a way that is positive and portrays it

as something that is a benefit to the community. This way of presenting the policy uses

13

language to immediately present the policy as something that the community and

further the university must have. It relates the “affirming the value of human diversity” to

“confronting and rejecting…prejudice,” making them connect in a way that alludes to

one not being possible without the other.

Also within the language of this policy is the use of words with negative

connotation – “confront and reject.” Discrimination is portrayed by these words as

something that is always the result of wrong acts, something that has to be dealt with

and rejected. There is no inclusion of the idea that sometimes discrimination can be the

result of a lack of education. There is no sense of compassion, yet the message of

diversity policies is compassion and understanding towards those different from one’s

self. This is again a way in which the language of the policy conflicts with the essence

of what it is meant to achieve.

Both these policies show that while the language may be presented differently,

the policies contain similar ideas and similar contradictions. However, to fully

understand the dimensions of the diversity policy in my goal of analyzing its

development and enforcement, I am selecting a university diversity policy with which I

am the most familiar, Georgia State University, as the focus of my deeper analysis and

the definition of a diversity policy for the purposes of this thesis. I feel that because of

the similarities of GSU’s policy to the other seen above, my finding can extend to all

other diversity policies sharing the same commonalties and internal conflicts seen

above.

The GSU diversity policy states:

14

Georgia State University strongly supports the First Amendment rights of

the United States Constitution of all individuals to freely express their

opinions and ideas. This policy is intended to clarify the point at which

protected free expression ends and prohibited discriminatory harassment

begins. Thus, each alleged policy violation will be reviewed on a case-by-

case basis acknowledging that free expression is an important and

essential component of the academic community, but with the right to

freely express one’s ideas comes the responsibility to avoid unlawful

discriminatory treatment. (Student Code of Conduct).

In this policy, one can see a new characteristic of language emerge. The use of

the word “clarify” points to the idea that the university is taking on the role of moderator.

This is a more neutral unassuming approach than that of Kansas State; however, with

this neutrality comes more ambiguity. From this we can see that GSU’s diversity policy

can be defined as a doctrine that takes on the responsibility, “to clarify the point at which

protected free expression ends and prohibited discriminatory harassment begins”

(Student Code of Conduct) with the goal then being that no one is subject to treatment

that isolates or targets them based on their differences. This open ended language

allows the policy to give the appearance of encompassing any event that can be

considered discrimination but the continuing language reflects the limitations seen in the

other policies.

The University’s diversity policy focuses in on three areas: discrimination,

discriminatory harassment, and sexual harassment. The university defines

discrimination as “unfair or unequal treatment of an individual based on race, color,

15

religion, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, sex, or sexual orientation”

(Student Code of Conduct and Policies). Discriminatory harassment is defined as:

Speech or other expression (words, pictures, or symbols) [. . .] if it

constitutes fighting words and is also sufficiently severe, pervasive, or

persistent so as to interfere, limit or deny one’s ability to participate in or

benefit from an educational program. “Fighting words” may include, but

are not limited to, words, pictures or symbols that:

a. are directed to an individual or individuals based upon that

person's race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability,

veteran status, sex or sexual orientation; and

b. tend to threaten violence, incite an immediate breach of the

peace or provoke a violent response. In the context of

discriminatory harassment, “fighting words” are those which are

commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or

contempt for human beings (Student Code of Conduct and

Policies).

We see in these sections the similarities from before in the language in the

previously referenced policies. The characterization of categories that are subject of

discrimination, the reference to only extreme scenarios of discrimination, and here

words like threaten and hatred are used, again words with extreme negative

connotation that overlook that the lack of education or knowledge in creating situations

of anti-diversity.

16

GSU also provides strict punishment for failing to comply with the Code of

Conduct ranging from a fraternity’s loss of its charter to expulsion of a student from

campus. The former was seen when the Pi Kappa Alpha University chapter lost their

charter from April 2004 to the end of fall semester 2004 for dress in black face which,

“the Committee believed that Pi Kappa Alpha members appearing in “black face"

amounted to fighting words as defined in Section 5.2 of the Student Code of Conduct”

(Student Organization Hearing). In the Pi Kappa Alpha case, students dressed in “black

face” as part of their costumes for a hip-hop themed party were deemed to have

committed discriminatory harassment and were punished by the loss of their charter.

Only two students had performed the act that was deemed as “fighting words,” yet the

entire fraternity was punished, as it was determined by the committee that there were

multiple parties at fault:

The Committee also believed that given the party's hip-hop theme, the

fraternity leadership (or advisor) should have made sure that its members

understood the difference between appropriate costumes and crude or

offensive costumes and that the failure to do so resulted in members

appearing in black face at the party. The Committee further concluded

that by allowing its members to attend the party in black face, Pi Kappa

Alpha was also in violation of Section 13.10 of the Student Code of

Conduct (Student Organization Hearing Results).

Along with defining University diversity policies and recognizing their goals, the

method of enforcement can be identified as well. It is a policy that is enforced by the

threat of harsh punishment where any opposition to the policy’s definition of free speech

17

will be addressed through the means of any and all punishment available. This is

evident in the Pi Kappa Alpha case. Whether the students where intentionally

attempting to make a racial statement or if they were simply trying to dress in an original

costume to get attention at the party, their actions were deemed to be outside of what

the University considered “acceptable” free speech, and they were severely punished.

A Failed University Model

Obviously, the diversity goals universities strive toward are commendable, and

the policies they’ve implemented to reach these goals appear perfectly legitimate;

however, upon close scrutiny one can easily find fault in the value system that led to the

policies’ creation. The modern American university model directly correlates to the

Germanic University model—a model that ultimately proved ineffective.

The hallmark of the German university was academic freedom for teachers and

students—the ideal that American universities pride themselves on today; however, the

American university system altered this view of academic freedom. Academic freedom

was thought to extend only to the teacher and not the student: “Academic freedom in

this sense comprises three elements: freedom of inquiry and research; freedom of

teaching within the university or college; and freedom of extra-mural utterance and

action” (Hofstadter and Smith 861). According to this definition, teachers are granted the

freedom to devote their research to topics they deem valuable and in turn have the

freedom to pass these values onto their students.

In essence, the American professor’s curriculum was the vehicle through which

institutions could “cultivate prescribed publicity” (Aleman 6). The prescribed publicity

intended to shape and mold young men’s minds for the greater good of the community.

18

The mission of the university was “characterized by the centrality of mind and the

privileging of reason, the primacy of the individual, and the concern for axiomatic

morality” (Aleman 6). Universities established these three characteristics with the

intention of cultivating students to enhance the democratic and social process of the

United States.

Unfortunately, the mission fell short of the universities’ objective because the

three defining points were easily shifted depending on the value system of the

individuals who devised the plan to accomplish the mission, and with this, “Education

thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the

teacher is the depositor” (Freire, 72).

Additionally, it wasn’t long until this prescribed publicity was removed from the

hands of teachers. This can be seen in the formation of Georgia State University as part

of the university system. GSU was formed as a small evening school by members of

Georgia Tech; however, in 1930:

When the reorganization of state government created a Board of Regents

to govern the University System of Georgia, the Regents decided that the

Georgia Tech Evening School of Commerce should be an independent

college in the new System (History of the University).

This decision by the Board of Regents is, of course, seen as beneficial to the

development of GSU as a growing university; however, coming under the umbrella of

the Board of Regents also means coming under the governance of the state

government’s policies and procedures, including practices regarding diversity. As seen

in the mission statement of the Georgia Board of Regents:

19

Each institution in the University System of Georgia will be characterized

by:

• A supportive campus climate, leadership and development

opportunities, and necessary services and facilities to meet the

needs of students, faculty, and staff;

• Cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender diversity in the faculty, staff, and

student body, supported by practices and programs that embody

the ideals of an open, democratic, and global society…(Vision,

Mission, Goals Statement)

Because GSU is part of the University System of Georgia, they must be in compliance

with the Board of Regents, which means that teachers do not have the only say in what

is the best method to present ideas and information to students – a state government

organization has a hand in determining how and what information is delivered to

students.

Additionally, we see government’s role in determining how policy is formed and

enforced through the form of government funding. According to the Board of Regents of

the University System of Georgia’s Annual Financial Reports, reported as of June 2007,

the Georgia Universities system received state appropriations in the amount of

$1,933,295,452 (5). To receive funding from the government, a university must adhere

to certain stipulations set forth by the state, federal, or local governments. These

governments that provide the funding then have the authority to force universities to

implement and abide by policies that govern the way teachers teach and students learn,

20

or the university risks losing the funding of which they have grown accustom to and

depend on to educate American youth and produce a talented work force.

The government requires universities to implement and abide by policies that

govern the way teachers teach and students learn so that the practices are in

compliance with all of the relevant laws regarding diversity. The issue is that the

university’s ideas about how to be in compliance do not always meet their goals, and

when the right method is not applied the diversity perspectives that the differences of

students and facility can create are stifled. Further, this system goes unchecked

because “…the oppressed, who have adapted to the structure of domination in which

they are immersed, have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle

for freedom so long as they feel incapable of running the risks required” (Freire 47).

Both the faculty that fears loss of funding or employment and the students who fear

punishment from the school system are detoured from seeking to change the way the

system is designed. This cycle of restriction will continue on unless universities are able

to govern themselves, presenting ideas in a way best suited for their student body,

regardless if they may or may not be in compliance with government perceptions of the

best approach to policy.

Proof of this can be seen in the 1978 Supreme Court case of the Regents of the

University of California v. Bakke. University of California Medical School at Davis, in an

attempt to meet the requirement of the law, “reserved sixteen places in each entering

class of one hundred for ‘qualified’ minorities, as part of the university's affirmative

action program,” and would not allow Allen Bakke to be accepted to the University

(Oyez ). The resulting court case determined that Bakke legally could not be excluded

21

from the school when race was the only requirement that prevented his acceptance.

Additionally, in August of 2001, the federal court of appeals panel ruled that the

University of Georgia could not give admission preference to non-white students as it

was unconstitutional (Firestone). In both cases, the university was attempting to

promote diversity to meet the rules of the state and federal governments, but the

method for reaching compliance was not applied in the correct way. Both these

instances created discrimination rather than aiding in diversity, but the practices went

unchecked likely due to the type of environment Freire describes where the parties are

afraid to confront the issue.

Authors William A. Kaplin and Barbara A. Lee note that loss of aid is a common

“remedy” for legality issues that arise in Universities. “…violations of statutes and

administrative agency regulations may lead to the termination of federal or state funding

for institutional programs…” (93). The fact that losing funding is one of the first options

or results of litigation shows that it is a punishment that the government is imposing on

the University and the ability to punish shows the ability to control.

Government aid in establishing a unified system that helps universities stand on

their own, rather than a government system that continues to monitor and will only give

aid when certain requirements are met, would ultimately prove more effective. A

system that governs itself is more in touch with the student body that it represents, and

due to this, it would be a more efficient system on all issues, including diversity.

Essentially, “if the American college is to marshal the intellectual forces of the next

century, it must break with those elements of its character that render it static and

22

forever defending a reality of its past” (Aleman 20). We must learn from our past, not

cling to it with such fervor that we cannot move forward to achieve our goal.

23

CHAPTER 3

The Banking Concept of Education and the Fallacy of Argument

To truly see the similarities between the shortfalls of the diversity policy and

fundamentals of the oppressive structure, one can examine the banking concept of

education as described by Paulo Freire. “In the banking concept of education,

knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon

those whom they consider to know nothing” (Freire 72). This theory of education

parallels to the actions that Tyler’s teacher demonstrated and how she could have

formed these ideas by being in an environment governed by a diversity policy similar to

that of GSU. As with the teaching of those imploring the banking system of education,

students are made to comply with a policy that has been developed by those who have

what the academic authorities considered to be expertise on how to implement effective

diversity regulations because students, coming from the harsh un-accepting world, are

ignorant to what diversity should be and therefore, must have the diversity policy to

guide them through this area of the unknown.

The fallacies in using this logic to mold the diversity policy is that the voices of

the students, who the policy is intended to mold and shape, are not a consideration in

the formation and constant change that is needed in creating the policies, as is evident

in the language of the policies. This is a contradiction to what the policy is trying to

achieve. How can the students, which compose the diversity of the campus, the living

breathing changing organism that is the reason diversity exists on the campus, not be

an active participant in molding, changing, and enforcing the policy? The policy itself

does not begin by allowing the diversity of the student population to come together in

24

the act of forming the guidelines that should exist, and in this way the policy overlooks

diversity and makes the student population one being, rather than many. The voice of

the diverse is silenced and made to adhere to the way diversity is defined on paper by

the university. There is no other option than what the university deems rule. “The

teacher [university governing body] presents himself to his students as their necessary

opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence” (Freire

72), as with the diversity policy – the diversity policies finds its need in the fact that

students, who are ignorant of diversity acceptance, need the rules that it upholds, as

they could not create diversity acceptance without it.

The fallacies of the banking education system become evident in the many ways

that they are manifested in the educator-student relationship, and these fallacies of

argument are shared with the way the diversity policy is being constructed and

enforced:

…the banking education maintains and even stimulates the contradiction

through the following attitudes and practices, which mirror oppressive

society as a whole:

(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught;

(b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing

(c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;

(d) the teacher talks and the students listen – meekly;

(e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined

(f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students

comply;

25

(g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through

the actions of the teacher;

(h) the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who

were not consulted) adapt to it;

(i) the teacher confuses the authority of the knowledge with his or her

own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the

freedom of the students;

(j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils

are mere objects (Freire 73).

All of these concepts are seen in the rhetoric of the diversity policy. The policy is

right and students must adhere, as is seen in the language appointing the university as

moderator. There is not a relationship between the students and the policy by which the

students can become the teaching vehicle to show where change is needed to make

the policy more than just rigid rules to enforce, shown by the inclusion of specific groups

rather than all the varying groups that emerge when a group consists of many different

persons. There is only the belief that since all students are unknowledgeable on how to

accept diversity and the issues surrounding diversity that they cannot contribute to the

harmony of campus life unless it is through being forced into a mold created by the

failing diversity polices; they are not given the opportunity to reflect and act, but only told

how to act. Students cannot claim their unique and diverse identities because doing so

would set them apart, and the diversity polices wish to make the entire student body

one solid unit without differences and variances.

26

The only hope to change this lies in resolving the contradiction that students

cannot teach the teachers. “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-

student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so they both are

simultaneously teachers and students” (Freire 72). In the university system, and further

the diversity policy concept, the idea is that all views are accepted and considered;

however, this is not the case, only the university authorities’ ideas are accepted, not

those of its diverse student population. That population must accept and adhere to the

ideas set before them in the university rules, rules that were neither created in part by

them, or with their specific needs in mind. Instead they are rules that were created to

maintain a peaceful, if only on the surface, view of the college day-to-day, an

environment where diversity is accepted because everyone’s unique differences are

muted into one like surface value then imposed on the university community through

events such as diversity fairs and training. The policy states that it “is intended to

clarify the point at which protected free expression ends and prohibited discriminatory

harassment begins,” but there is no clear reference to how to accomplish this, and the

efforts that are put forth would appear to seek to do this by blurring the lines on what

makes certain groups diverse.

Diversity Policy Shaped through Morality

Diversity’s transition occurred from an idealist term into a concept nearly every

university strived for, in part, because college campuses’ populations no longer

comprised only the country’s affluent white-males, they comprised members from all

social and economic classes. This population shift occurred due to the advancement in

minority rights. This acknowledgment of long over-due rights opened the doors of

27

universities to students from all walks of life, but the students already behind those

doors were less than excited about their new classmates—an attitude that only

heightened the already existing controversy.

The controversy was and still is rooted in the bed of strongly held beliefs,

fertilized by the values individuals are indoctrinated with in their communities. The

values adhered to were/are based on a chosen religion, political affiliation, or social

standing—the elements that function to shape and support an individual’s morality.

These three elements are the most controversial topics associated with human

interaction, and the reason why achieving harmonious diversity is so problematic.

Integrating diverse populations into the “common college culture meant a color-blind

attitude and conferring upon diverse students those values consistent with the

normative culture,” (Aleman 8) but no one bothered to define what the normative culture

was.

The initial implementation of diversity programs intended to “blend” campuses

with “quotas” of racially diverse groups. These programs naively anticipated the

integration to end, or at least weaken the hatred amongst differing groups on campus.

Janet Casey notes the problem with this approach in her essay “Diversity, Discourse,

and the Working-Class Student:” “Yet counting such students, or even creating

resources designed to help them succeed in college, accomplishes little in the way of

interrogating the fundamental ideas that drive the mandate for diversity” (34). This

inclusionary plan assumed that the students would recognize diversity as a way to

“welcome the unfamiliar and different as occasions to edify and enlighten the conditions

of [their] experiential ignorance” (Aleman 14).

28

The problem with this blending is that it did nothing to change the opinions and

values that the individuals held. Simply combining racial groups could never erase the

years of enculturation each individual had been subjected to. The enculturation each

student received directly influenced his or her outlook and view on life, so how in the

world did the policy makers believe that once the groups were integrated that they

would adapt the values of the normative culture? Again, diversity leaders assumed that

members of the college community would form some sort of “multi-cultural intelligence”

on their own that would allow them to see past their differences and recognize their

“shared ends;” they are all college students struggling to obtain a diploma in order to

better themselves and acquire gainful employment.

The enormous diversity that extended across the campus should have sparked

the question: What exactly is the normative culture? And, how do we, as policy makers

and diversity advocates, explain to the student population that color-blindness and

unquestioning acceptance is now the normative culture? These questions were never

posed because the policy makers organized their plan under the impression that logic

and reason would prevail: “Reason will enable [them] to understand the connection

between familiar and unfamiliar experiences, between accepted knowledge and novel

explications; that is reason will enable us to welcome uncertainty and speculation,

difference, and modification” (Aleman 19).

The supposition that reason will prevail in the decision to accept uncertainty and

difference assumes that diversity’s values are self-evident to anybody with eyes that

see and ears that hear. What person could look at segregation, prejudice, and crimes of

29

hatred and think these things should be valued? It should be blatantly obvious that any

action whose sole purpose is to hurt another person is utterly morally reprehensible.

The belief that choice is an option relates to the idea that reason governs the

choices made, and in a world where reason is the agent for change diversity policies

would certainly work. Reason eliminates the possibility for further discrimination

because the principles that govern prejudice are illogical; however, prejudicial

arguments are anything but logical, and, unfortunately, the arguments against prejudice

are not always logical either. With an issue like prejudice and discrimination, it is easy

for the opponent of prejudice to move from a logos argument that is rooted in logic to

one that is driven by the authority of the author, ethos, or a pathos argument, one fueled

by nothing more than strong emotion. Both pathos and ethos can easily take over when

the topic is one that is in so many ways for so many people a person issue or an attack

on elements that help to define one’s identity; however, to create solid policies that will

result in the desired outcome and truly affect change, the rhetoric that those policies are

built on must be rooted in logos because emotion and ethics are easily swayed by

individual experiences and perception. If non-circular, unflawed logic is used, it has the

ability to translate universally to all people.

Thomas Frentz points out the approach policy makers take is fundamentally

flawed in his essay “Rhetorical Conversation, Time, and Moral Action:” “Although public

arguments appear in the guise of rationality, at base they derive from premises

containing concepts (e.g. human rights and utility) divorced from the moral traditions

which originally gave them meaning” (289). The context in which diversity exists is

created by society’s views of morality. The morality ascribed to creates the need for

30

diversity policies; the ascribed morality favors the group that has been most mistreated

over the group that is more privileged due to ethnicity, class, or any other classification

that separates people into groups. If the current social system did not value one group

over another there would not be a need for a diversity policy. The policies were created

in order to change this current moral system into a system that does not favor one

group over another. Diversity policy aims to correct the emotionally charged beliefs that

govern the actions which lead to hatred through logical arguments; however, these so-

called logical arguments result from the same emotional stance that they desire to

counter, and in the case of two emotional arguments, neither can truly be right or wrong

since they are not based in logic. Frentz reminds us in both instances, pro-diversity or

anti-diversity, the context in which the arguments are made is emotional, not logical

despite attempts to prove otherwise:

All rational attempts to justify moral action culminate in some variant of

emotivism […] Emotivism grounds premises for moral action in the

desires, preferences, and needs of the individual, values the ahistorical

autonomous moral agent who is free to choose his or her moral actions,

and views people as means to be manipulated as opposed to ends to be

valued (289).

The struggle for both an environment based on oppressive practice and Diversity

movements is a moral opposition to others’ value systems. “Education as the exercise

of domination stimulates the credulity of students, with the ideological intent … of

indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression” (Freire 78). This underlying

intention is a direct result to the moral obligation the university system feels to the

31

outside world to turn out students who are good workers that blend well and mix

harmoniously into the diverse working society, and the possibility that anything that

could jeopardize that goal creates a moral opposition between the two sides of the

scope – student and university.

Students that based on their personal beliefs act outside of the established moral

compass that the university creates become opponents of the moral right that the

diversity polices wishes to uphold. Diversity as a concept evokes moral issues

especially of such issues as religion and sexuality. By upholding one idea of what is

right from a diversity standpoint on these moral issues, another side must be wrong,

which not only creates a paradox to the diversity polices since one side is not accepted,

but also forms an argument that is rooted in moral value, which closely ties it to emotion

since the moral values one individual holds can be formed in part by the emotions they

feel and relate to certain issues.

These links to morality lead to an authoritarian structure because its leaders

claim insight, and a relationship to truth based on that personal, non-empirically

verifiable truth which requires submission and acceptance rather than discussion,

verification, or intellectual understanding. This is a morality that differs from legality in

that legality upholds the safety and basic rights of the individual, while allowing one

person to reject the beliefs of another as long as that person does not psychically or in

any other way harm the person whose beliefs they reject. Morality, on the other hand,

wants to be accepted by all parts as the ultimate answer to right and wrong, and it is

morality that aligns with the goal of the diversity polices, in that the diversity policies

wants everyone to not only tolerate but accept diversities. But again, the weakness and

32

contradiction to this moral argument is one party must be wrong in order for both sides

to agree.

In order to fully understand this we must remember, “institutions are not living

organisms but are the expressions, projections and extensions of our personal

attitudes” (Aleman 12). This statement notes that although university leaders strive to

create the “best” possible environment for their students they too are a product of

enculturation, and are incapable of autonomous decisions, which is the reason they

must seek to found the principles behind the diversity policy on what is logical, rather

than on an attempt to create a morally harmonious environment.

University Faculty and Administrative members use diversity policies to suit their

own needs. For example, Chancellor Denton at the University of California, Santa Cruz

arranged the creation of a special billet that was unannounced and closed to all

applicants except for her live-in girlfriend of seven years. Chancellor Denton essentially

made use of what is commonly referred to as the good-ol’-boy network (nepotism), but

she was able to avoid criticism because she is a lesbian—a minority (Hanson). It’s

interesting that there wasn’t even one Hispanic, African-American, Asian, or even male

applicant who was qualified enough to at least be granted an interview.

Another troubling case involved Robert Birgeneau, Chancellor of the University of

California, Berkley. Chancellor Birgeneau immediately decided upon his appointment

that his campus was not “diverse” enough—arguing that the University did not have as

many Native American, Hispanic, and African-American students as it should. The

actual campus population can be seen in Figure 1.1, while the actual population of the

state of California can be seen in Figure 1.2. As the charts demonstrate, the University’s

33

student demographic population almost directly correlates to California’s demographic

composition. The only group that is slightly under-represented is the Hispanic

population, but only by a mere 24 percent.

Campus Population

10%

3%

4%

48%

35%

Hispanic

black

Native-American

Asian-American

white

Figure 1.1: Campus Population

California Population

34%

7%

1%11%

47%

Hispanic

black

Native-American

Asian-American

white

Figure 1.2: California Population

The Claremont Institute

The Claremont Institute

34

What, if not hard, statistical data was Chancellor Birgeneau basing his

assumptions on? As I’ve previously discussed, I suggest that the Chancellor based his

actions on pressures from the community to incorporate diversity simply for the sake of

promoting the ideal despite the reality.

Is Chancellor Birgeneau suggesting, then, that the University stop admitting

Asian-Americans despite their academic superiority over other candidates because

there are too many of them enrolled? I highly doubt it, but this question and many others

often occur as a result of the way Administrators and Faculty allow their own

enculturation to influence diversity policies. Victor Hanson poignantly describes the

corruption associated with diversity: “the one constant is how the rhetoric of “diversity”

trumps almost all other considerations—and how race and gender can be manipulated

by either the college president or the faculty in ways that have nothing to do with

educating America’s youth, but everything to do with personal aggrandizement in an

increasingly archaic and unexamined enclave” (Profiles in Diversity). In short, diversity

in these examples was used in vain to achieve one person’s personal agenda but was

overlooked, because, as Hanson points out, diversity is not examined in the university

system as it needs to be and has become in many ways an untouchable subject. If

programs are developed to increase tolerances, they may not be scrutinized in the

same way other, non-controversial areas are.

Diversity and the Margins

Typically, diversity aims to remove groups from the margins of society in order to

achieve equality, and, quite frequently, considers only race as the factor leading toward

marginalization. As I’ve mentioned before, true diversity seeks to place all members of

35

society on an equal playing field. This focus on race damages diversity development

because it pushes other groups to the margins, which in turn perpetuates the cycle of

frustration from both those forced into the margins and those wanting to help eliminate

this segregation. For true diversity acceptance to exist, there can be no one that is

marginalized. All parties must be equals, yet this does not occur. This is another

commonality between the diversity policies and an oppressive environment. To

distinguish diversity, one must pinpoint the differences in the group through

examination. As Michael Foucault says in The Foucault Reader: “The

examination…establishes over individuals a visibility through which one differentiates

them and judges them. That is why, in all mechanisms of discipline, the examination is

highly ritualized” (197). Ritualized in such ways as it is on University campuses where

events, such as diversity fairs, seek to put focus on the differences of one group in an

effort to force acceptance. Instead of singling out certain groups on certain days or

events, why not accurately portray all groups during all days. This not only educates

students about different groups, but does so in a way where all are presented together

rather than being singled out.

Diversity organizations implore a tactic to teach others how to accept the

differences in other people in their diversity education courses, but how can the solution

to not viewing others as equals be to further point out all the things that make those

others different from one’s self? In her article, “How ‘diversity’ breeds division,” Munira

Mirza points out:

Diversity training is supposed to help ‘promote good relations’ between

different ethnic groups and capitalize on workforce diversity. However,

36

there is warranted skepticism about whether such training alleviates

tensions or exacerbates them. Much of the content of this training is over

reliant on pop sociology and pseudo-therapeutic techniques [….] Trainers

claim to eliminate stereotypes in the workplace [and school campuses],

yet in talking about ‘different cultural perspectives’ they end up generating

new and more insidious stereotypes in their stead.

Instead of achieving the harmonious community the diversity strives for, these diversity

training and education workshops provide more means for students to identify the

differences within their student community. They are presented with more extensive

reasons that lead to ways their peers or themselves can be classified as others –

defining terms that can create segregation among groups opens the door toward

acknowledging those differences.

Communication researchers have developed categories, “personas,” that result

when rhetorical discourses are used that will help explain this cycle of frustration. The

categories of audiences refer to the indirect effect rhetoric has on groups of people

outside of those who directly come in to contact with the speaker’s rhetoric. In the case

of diversity rhetoric, diversity advocates attempt to portray diversity as a concept that is

as equally appealing as, say, world peace, because it will ensure the safety and

success of all people.

While this approach proves effective through social change, the positive effect for

one is a negative effect for another. Philip Wander describes these effects in his essay

“The Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory:” “The negated effect

forms the Third Persona—“the “it” that is not present, that is objectified in a way that

37

“you” and “I” are not” (370). Often, depending on how the argument is constructed, the

“it” becomes undesirable, unacceptable, and insignificant. The Third Persona, therefore,

refers to being negated. But being negated includes not only being alienated through

language—but also being negated in history, a being whose presence, though relevant

to what is said, is negated through silence” (Wander 370). Diversity rhetoric on

university campuses creates its own Third Persona—the working-class student.

Janet Casey points out in her essay “Diversity, Discourse, and the Working-Class

Student: “When we talk about diversity as something we should value, acquire, or

address (or not) in the classroom we collapse distinct categories of difference—ethnic,

regional, socioeconomic and so on, but we frequently fail to parse the diversities within

diversity.” If we look closely at Georgia State University’s diversity organizations we

quickly notice this lack of parsing. The goal of GSU’s policy is “intended to clarify the

point at which protected free expression ends and prohibited discriminatory harassment

begins” (Student Code of Conduct ). The University’s diversity policy focuses on three

areas: discrimination, discriminatory harassment, and sexual harassment. The

university defines discrimination as “unfair or unequal treatment of an individual based

on race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, sex, or sexual

orientation;” discriminatory harassment “as speech or other expression (words, pictures,

or symbols) [. . .] if it constitutes fighting words and is also sufficiently severe, pervasive,

or persistent so as to interfere, limit or deny one’s ability to participate in or benefit from

an educational program.

The diversity policy does nothing to specify acceptance of persons based on

financial status. It recognizes diversity only as a difference between races, sexual

38

preferences, and gender; in other words, it excludes large groups that are diverse for

other reasons than those recognized by the University. Anytime it elevates differences

based on race, sex, and sexual preference to be more significant than those differences

within these economic groups there are always groups that still exist that are pushed

into the margins.

The glaring problem with diversity is that it discriminates against those outside

the ivory towers. The benefits associated with diversity rhetoric do not extend to

students outside the university walls, and pushes students from the working-class to the

fence line. Even though universities have come a long way in terms of educating all who

seek knowledge rather than society’s elite, they still maintain that college privileges

people in society—not just their monetary worth, but also their worth to the greater good

of society. Universities’ investment, make no mistake—it’s expensive, in the education

process/curricula/policy that intended to afford every group of society the opportunity to

learn overlooks the very differences of those students who we most need to

accommodate, financially challenged students, dare I say poor.

Financial freedom is what kept a college education exclusive to society’s elite—

the wealthy, white, landowning male. Racial minorities were perceived as inferior,

enslaved or severely mistreated, and never given the opportunity to advance. This lack

of opportunity prevented them from acquiring a major resource necessary to attend

college, money. The advancement in civil liberties in the 20th century eliminated, at least

legally, the discrimination that prevented minorities from gaining the chance at financial

equality—race was no longer the only reason for a lack of education. Other factors

39

contributed and extended to all people regardless of race, sex, and religion that

prevented them from attending college – the biggest of these being economic status.

Students that were unable to attend college before were having financial options

opened to them in the name of making Universities more diverse, while students in the

middle class that do not fall into what the Universities deem minority categories have

less financial opportunities given to them making them the new other category, for

example a middle class white student is not given the same financial aid as a middle

class Hispanic student that is able to qualify for a minority scholarship – does this not

discriminate against the white student and make him an other? Casey explains this

difference: “While every minority group may stake a claim to its own specialized needs

and concern, I would argue that working-class students stand apart from students in all

other minority categories even as they cut across all such categories, precisely because

of their fundamentally oblique relationship to the entire enterprise of higher education”

(34).

Just as minorities viewed an education as a way to achieve equality in society so

do those students who grow up poor. They’ve been told that an education is the solution

to your financial problems. With an education you can leave the trailer park, buy a

Mercedes and marry a supermodel—educational rhetoric, both at the high school and

college levels, has long celebrated college as the way up and out of the working class.

Unfortunately, “for the less privileged student, that rhetoric—the rhetoric of the American

dream, of achievement, of assimilation—is far more immediately compelling than the

diversity rhetoric that purports to value difference, including class based difference”

(Casey 34).

40

Unlike other non-mainstream students, lower-class students are defined as

“other” not by those cultural descriptors of race, gender, and sexuality that the academy

prides itself on eliminating, but by the “norms of the academy itself.” The universities’

policy destroys the working-class student’s chance for assimilation because it constantly

points out his differences by highlighting what he lacks—computer equipment, new

books, or the simple ability to buy lunch. The preaching of the American dream caused

students to believe that they are better than others simply for being in college, and this

attitude surfaces around campus even before degrees are conferred. What our diversity

discourses fail to recognize is that traditionally disadvantaged groups do not stand in

equal relation to the “enterprise of higher education”, and thus cannot be made “to serve

equally the purposes of a diverse academy” (Casey 34)

Unfortunately, even if these students assimilate into the diversity culture the

marginalization of these students will move from the college campus into their homes:

“Working class students often become alienated from their families in direct proportion

to their procurement of new ideas and attitudes, and they are frequently unprepared for

the cultural and personal schisms that result” (Casey 35). The diversity policies for

these students have not only failed to make their collegiate experience more

harmonious but have failed in teaching students to accept the diversity that they will

encounter even after their college experience is complete.

Again a marked similarity between the ideologies and tactics used by oppressive

rhetoric and the rhetoric and affects of the University diversity policies can be seen.

Marginalization is a necessary part of any oppressive environment. “Any situation in

which ‘A’ objectively exploits ‘B’ or hinders his and her pursuit of self-affirmation as a

41

responsible person is one of oppression” (Freire 55). One group must be marginalized

for oppression to exist. One group is pushed outside the “elite” and made to be the

lesser, undeserving of the groups. The oppressors in any situation must make

distinctions between themselves and the objects of their oppression.

For oppressors…it is always the oppressed (whom they obviously never

call ‘the oppressed’ but – depending on whether they are fellow

countrymen or not – ‘those people’ or ‘the blind and envious masses’ or

‘savages’ or ‘natives’ or ‘subversives’) who are ‘violent’, ‘barbaric’,

‘wicked’, or ‘ferocious’ when they react to the violence of the oppressors

(Freire 56).

Oppression simply cannot exist without marginalization, and the diversity policy cannot

exist without creating marginalization because to identify diversity one must identify the

differences that define the margins.

Margins within the University Diversity Organizations

Just as oppression by definition creates a other, the very nature and logic of

diversity rhetoric creates an “other” based on ethnicity. The further complication of this

type of marginalization is that it presents a conflict even within itself in that one person

can be deemed an other based on ethnicity, yet at the same time be within the margins

based on class. University organizations focused on diversity with directives to create

more opportunities for minority groups; however, despite the fact that the universities’

directives were implemented based on the best of intentions for these groups, they

defeated the goals of diversity because when one group is given opportunities above

and beyond that of another, a status of other is created. While in the case of someone

42

class privileged, yet aided due to ethnicity, those class privileged that are not part of the

aided ethnicity become the other since they are closed out based on one part of their

identity.

The Office for Underrepresented Faculty at GSU states its goal as, “to support

the university's commitment to diversity among its faculty with focus on recruitment and

retention of ethnic minority tenure-track faculty,” and defines the group that they are

aimed at creating opportunity for as, “ethnic minorities include African Americans,

American Indian or Alaskan Natives, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islanders, and they may be either citizens or permanent residents.” This is

obviously exclusive of several ethnic groups, yet this is an organization whose purpose

is to support diversity. How can diversity exist simultaneously with exclusion?

When numbers are limited and special provisions are made for one group over

another, one group will be negatively impacted. If a set number of students are

accepted by a University and provisions are made to ensure a certain percentage falls

into one ethnic category, the group that is not part of that required percentage will end

up penalized. No matter how qualified the individual may be, if the quota for their ethnic

group has been met, they will not be allowed to attend the University. There is no

sense of true equality based on the acceptance of diversity when students are labeled

by their ethnicity to ensure that very diversity. Those that are qualified to attend a

University but cannot because their race category has been filled are marginalized in

the same way those who were not allowed to attend Universities because of

segregation in schools – they are seen as persons of different color, not as equals.

These types of diversity programs do not work because they, “cannot rectify past

43

wrongs because their beneficiaries are not the victims in any straightforward sense;

indeed preferences can only commit new wrongs because the cost-bearers are

innocent” (Schuck 35). The further similarities in this marginalization and the policies of

oppressive culture are obvious.

Enforcement of the Ideologies of Oppression

To truly see how closely the diversity policy and the ideologies of oppression

resemble one another, one must look that the methods in which each are enforced. We

have established that the oppressive culture creates an environment where the

authority figure of the oppressive environment is right because the oppressed group

does not contain the knowledge needed to contribute or the moral fiber needed to be a

productive force in the world. However, how does this idea survive without the

oppressed realizing their worth or attempting to free themselves from the oppression

they live under? The answer to this question is the way in which the oppression is

enforced.

One necessary part of enforcing oppression control is to dehumanize the

oppressed. “…the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change

them into the apparently inanimate ‘things’” (Freire 59). By taking away the basic worth

of the oppressed, it removes their ability to feel that they desire anything other than their

oppressive environment. Their instinctual ability to strive for something greater is

diminished by turning them into objects rather than human beings. They are a group

needing to be lead by another that without the control of the oppressor would be lost.

44

A second integral part in enforcing oppression is the consistency in the

emphasizing the ideas of the oppressors onto the oppressed, so much in fact that the

oppressed begin to take on and live the ideas of their oppressors.

Self-depreciation is another characteristic of the oppressed, which derives

from their internalization of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. So

often do [the oppressed] hear that they are good for nothing, know

nothing, and are incapable of learning anything – that they are sick, lazy,

and unproductive – that in the end they become convinced of their own

unfitness (Freire 63).

Constant reiteration that a group is unknowing or unworthy of better treatment, better

environment, more freedom, etc will eventually resonate so deeply that the oppressed

accept this fate with no resistance. This allows the oppressors to dictate the required or

acceptable actions to the oppressed – it limits their ability to even make attempts to

think or reason outside to the accepted boundaries they have been handed.

The Enforcement of Diversity Limits Freedom of Speech

The University Diversity policy shares with the policies of the oppressive ideology

a method of enforcement that stifles the free speech of the students that attend the

universities. University diversity policies dictate what speech is considered allowable,

and what speech is considered merit for punishment. Diversity policies are, “grounded

in the need to foster an atmosphere respectful of and welcome to all persons…But,

while we can acknowledge the weight of these concerns and the thoughtfulness of

those persuaded of the need for regulation, rules that ban or punish speech based upon

its content cannot be justified” (DeGeorge 126).

45

The most common infringement of free speech is the institution of speech codes

throughout college campuses. Speech codes dictate what type of language is deemed

unallowable because it is seen as discriminatory or harassment. The issue, however,

with speech codes is that they are too restrictive or are too vague.

A statute is overboard if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected

speech in its attempt to restrict unprotected speech. A statute or

regulation is vague if it does not adequately inform a person what

expressive conduct is prohibited and what expressive conduct is allowed,

leaving a person to guess as its application. However, in several

instances, the Supreme Court has deemed speech codes unconstitutional

or too vague to enforce (Hudson).

The overboard speech code obviously demonstrates an infringement on free speech. In

the case of the speech codes that are too vague, the implementation of fear takes over.

Students become unsure of what they can or cannot say while still remaining within the

realm allowed by the speech codes of the university, so they become forced to silence

their thought or opinions for fear that they will fall outside of the allowed speech and that

they will be punished.

In several cases, the unconstitutionality of speech codes has been recognized by

the Supreme Court. For example, at the University of Michigan in 1989:

Several complaints were filed against students under the [University of

Michigan] policy. One was filed against a student for stating that Jewish people

used the Holocaust to justify Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians…A

psychology student, identified only as John Doe, challenged the policy. He

46

argued that discussion of certain controversial theories in his field of

biopsychology…might violate the policy. The court agreed that the policy was

overboard. ‘The Supreme Court has consistently held that statutes punishing

speech or conduct solely on the grounds that they are unseemly or offensive are

unconstitutionally overbroad,’ the court wrote (Hudson).

The right to free speech is one that should not be denied notwithstanding how

offensive the language used is. When free speech is denied, students lose their

constitutional right to express their feeling and opinions no matter what those opinions

maybe. The institution of diversity does not supersede the need for free speech, and

students cannot truly be in a harmonious community when they live in fear of

punishment for their ideas.

A Mainstream Look at Diversity Education

The lack of effectiveness of the diversity policy enforced by the American

education system cannot be ignored when that ineffectiveness becomes so prevalent

that it reaches the grasp of mainstream media as a sort of satire – satire that can only

be effectively humorous if the audience recognizes the irony and exposition on the real

underlying issue that is the punch line of the joke being portrayed. In an episode of the

popular Fox cartoon comedy “King of the Hill” that aired on November 25th, 2007,

Bobby, the middle school attending son of the show’s main character, is confronted with

the implementation of diversity education when Dr. Pope comes to Bobby’s school after

being sent in by the superintendent to perform a “series of tolerance exercises” that the

school must submit or lose their funding since the school has reached 42 percent

diversity.

47

Dr. Pope immediately identifies a severe issue with conflicts that are rooted in the

lack of diversity education when he overhears the carnival committee arguing over a

split decision of whether to discuss theme or decorations first. He poses a question to

the middle-schoolers asking the group that wants to discuss themes first if they would

like to solve their issue by sending those with the opposing idea on a vacation. Bobby

responds with the agreement of his classmates that the vacation solution would be a

“classic win-win.” As Bobby says, “…they get to have a nice trip, and we can go back to

working on the carnival.” Dr. Pope quickly informs them that this is the wrong answer

fueled by lack of understanding of diversity and that the vacation was really a trip to,

among other negative comparisons, a “death camp.” He uses the same method of

negative reinforcement to attempt to guilt the students into accepting diversity.

Later in the episode, the student’s lament over their races’ negative contributions

and societal short coming, of which they had no part. They are forced to acknowledge

diversity of their fellow students by focusing on the negative connotations that go with

their own racial history. The satire of the episode is rooted in the same key elements

that both the diversity policy and the ideology of the oppression are rooted in –

fallacious logic within the rhetoric of the ideas and the marginalization of one group.

Again, as well, one can see Freire’s reference to reflection and action is turned

backwards. An action is given that must be met first, and reflection, if any, is on the

action that was instructed, not on the actions of the person. The idea portrayed in the

episode shows the only way the children can acknowledge diversity properly is through

guilt and fear of being racist; to do this they must acknowledge their own race as inferior

accompanied by a strong feeling guilt of wrong doing. How then can the logic of the

48

diversity policy work if it focuses attention on the very thing that it strives to have

accepted – the differences that one student has between another – while at the same

time showing that it is emotion and sense of morality that is the strongest reason the

children have for believing they are at fault and need to change?

Secondly, the group of children becomes outsiders when they abandon the

carnival to hold an assembly about diversity. Their forced acceptance of the policies

causes them to become outcasts in the eyes of their fellow classmates, not equals. In a

comedic way, this spoof of diversity policy enforcement in schools identifies the core

problems that exist with this flawed ideology and points to reasons why it fails.

Using the educational system’s diversity policy as a source to extract comic value

points to the same message that Peter Schuck points to in his book, Diversity in

America: Keeping Government at a Safe Distance, “As we interact in an increasingly

diverse world, we should strive to cultivate in individuals a capacity for greater

resilience, not greater delicacy” (213). Breeding an environment of oversensitivity does

not equate to an environment of acceptance, but instead creates more conflicts. Both

the writers of “King of the Hill” and Schuck show this by pointing to the need for diversity

advocates to accept a certain level of understanding that not every politically incorrect

comment is due to racism or discrimination, something Tyler could have benefited from

had his teacher understood this. Further, the hypersensitivity of the education system

that is put on display in this episode is a contradiction to the language of the diversity

policy, which we have already seen talks specifically about not allowing extreme acts of

hatred, yet as we have also seen in the case of the fraternity party, gives harsh

punishment even to the acts that were not derived from hatred.

49

The Failure of Diversity Policies in Creating Diversity

The marginalization that is caused be the diversity policy is directly tied to the

downfalls in the logic in which it is rooted. Ultimately, the logic behind the diversity

policy cannot succeed in creating color blindness and harmonious equality, no more

than oppressive practices can truly mold all the oppressed into one common being. The

logic is flawed in that to accept the differences that others possess, we must first identify

and acknowledge that there are differences in the first place. As John Skrentny says in

his article, “US: whose land of opportunity,” “If we hope for a colour-blind future,

diversity policies problematically imbue race with great meaning. They could reinforce

rather than mitigate differences.” In this sense, the diversity policy’s goal is impossible

to achieve because the policy strives for equality without acknowledging that persons

can be equal and different at the same time. Difference and equality become

competing words, where one cannot remain where the other is present, and due to this,

the diversity policy shows those differences as separations, not equalities.

The ultimate question that measures the success of the diversity policy is, “do the

diversity policy and its enforcement improve the quality of student life?” The answer to

that question, as seen in the study, “Does Enrollment Diversity Improve University

Education?” is no, it does not. This study, which gained national recognition as it, “runs

in the opposition to the majority of academic studies done on racial diversity,” showed

that forced university diversity did not increase the student experience in any more

positive way (Greenberg). The study conducted interviews with 1,643 students, 1,632

facility members, and 808 administrators at 140 randomly selected American

universities and colleges. The study’s findings, “failed to support the argument that

50

enrollment diversity improves the education and racial milieu at American colleges and

universities” (Greenburg). More interestingly and further proving that the correlation

between university diversity policies and harmonious equality are not directly nor

necessarily tied together, the study:

[F]ocused on racial diversity at predominantly and historically white

colleges and universities after the admittance of black students, [and]

found negative correlations between minority enrollment and the degree to

which students appreciate and benefit from their education (Greenburg).

As one can see, the diversity policy of the American university system does not

harmonize the campuses on which it is enforced; instead, it fails without harmonizing

the community, because it silences the diverse just as oppressive ideology silences the

oppressed. Both policies fall victim to the weakness in the logic which their policies are

built upon, and therefore cannot achieve their goals.

51

CONCLUSION

Many universities have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends

any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation disguising

them as diversity policies; however, despite its good intentions, this is not the way to

affect change. The First Amendment to United States Constitution protects speech no

matter how offensive its content. Diversity policies that become speech codes that are

adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government

censorship in violation of the Constitution. I agree with the American Civil Liberties

Union’s opinion “that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles

because academic freedom is the bedrock of education in a free society” (ACLU

website). Our value of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is

someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to

our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the

right of free speech is indivisible. When one person is denied this right, all people are

denied.

Where racist, sexist, and homophobic speech is concerned, I believe that more

speech, not less, is the answer. This is particularly true at universities whose mission is

to facilitate learning through open debate and study. Diversity policies, which are

undoubtedly really speech codes, are not aiding in the acceptance and tolerance of

differing opinions. These policies hide the problem rather than exposing the problem.

Exposure is critical because when hate is out in the open people can see the problem. If

the problem becomes visible then people can organize effectively to counter bad

attitudes—possibly change them—and unite to combat the forces of intolerance.

52

Diversity has become the term that “academic bullies throw down when they

mean to end discussion before one properly begins” (Pinsker 7). Classroom discussion,

presumably enhanced by varying opinions, can no longer take place because the

students fear that if they speak their mind they will be punished. I don’t think it’s the

university’s responsibility to dictate what opinion a student may hold; its responsibility is

to educate and provide an environment where the student comes to the conclusion that

his opinions are morally reprehensible through experience with his peers.

Students’ compliance with diversity policy sends the message to policy makers

that a change occurred on campus, a moral shift toward tolerance; however, the results

came about because of fear. I believe many students agree with the goal of diversity,

but are confused as to the methods for encouraging it; the way Tyler’s teacher believed

that diversity would come about through punishment, rather than education. Students

are told to accept everybody regardless of their own beliefs, and this contradicts the

promises made to students that college campuses are an environment where their

beliefs will be accepted. The reality is that the only belief system that a university

acknowledges as correct is the one it has created and puts forth in the diversity policies,

and anyone who objects to or challenges this system will be subjected to harsh

punishment, just as those living under an oppressive structure – accept the rhetoric you

are given as true, apply it to your life and belief system, or suffer the consequences.

Fear, not true acceptance, in both cases becomes the reason the ideology is accepted

and upheld by the community in which it is forced upon, and ultimately, with both

doctrines, a other is created who is then chastised or punished for not conforming.

When, in the case of the diversity policy, the intent was to eliminate this very process of

53

exclusion of a person for holding different beliefs. The diversity policy falls short as it

creates a scenario that it is designed to eliminate.

Predominately, no one deliberately intends to hurt another individual through his

beliefs, but he does ask for the same respect for his beliefs as others demand for their

beliefs. The diversity policies incorporate additional stress into the life of a student

because they place pressure on a student to change his belief(s) even if he doesn’t

totally agree with the cause. Often times students are subjected to university condoned

peer pressure to conform and fight for standards that contradict the student’s opinions

because “Higher Education self-confidently assumes its own advantageousness, and

our diversity rhetoric falls in line with that assumption by positing a diverse student body

as a better student body, one that contributes more fully to students’ growth and

development” (Casey 35). The universities force students to comply with its rules

because they’ve determined that the rules are what’s “best” for the student without

allowing the student any involvement in the decision.

Sanford Pinsker describes a situation commonly seen on university campuses

that is a direct result of a “numbers” approach to diversity: “Students will sign their

names to any petition out to encourage more diversity, because, after all, who wants to

raise questions, much less to withhold a signature, when the sheet of paper thrust in

one’s face is held by a passionately earnest black, Hispanic, or member of some other

recognized, underrepresented constituency?” (8). I’m not disagreeing with universities

granting permission to students to fight for what they believe in, but if equality is the

goal, and other policies are in place to ensure this, what good can come from further

restriction—suffocation caused by numbers. Unfortunately, if one group demands more

54

representation and recognition they ultimately silence and detract from the

representation and recognition of another group. Instead of creating a kinder, gentler

campus diversity policy creates an “angry, deeply suspicious separatism” (Pinsker 9).

If we look at the university campus, we can see that while in name the student

body is accepting diversity, does the environment really demonstrate that diversity

acceptance? From my observation, the answer is no. As you walk through the campus

square between the General Classroom Building and Sparks Hall, it is notoriously

obvious that harmonious diversity is not taking place. The black students congregate in

one area of the square, while near the library the Asian students gather around to

socialize with one another, and so on and so forth with other groups.

Lack of diversity is seen between the white students as well, as is obvious when

you see the alternative style white students gathered by the tree outside GCB playing

hacky sack separating themselves far from the more clean-cut white students. Knowing

more about the segregation because of the insight of being a student, one can point out

the area where gay students meet and converse versus the areas where the sports

players are catching up between classes. This real life look at how students value

diversity shows that the University diversity policy does little more than serve as a

reminder in the back of students minds to watch what they say in public forums where

they may get caught or reprimanded; however, in real life scenarios, the diversity policy

is overwhelmingly failing.

We need to recognize that personal interest contributes to segregation just as

much if not more than intolerance of diversity. “A genuine pursuit of diversity, then,

would move beyond merely inclusive practices in admissions policies or classroom

55

politics and toward a more reflective consideration of the implications of our ideological

values and everyday expectations for non-mainstream groups. It may even recognize

the possibility that the academy is not situated to accommodate equally all forms of

difference, most especially class-based difference” (Casey 37).

Jocks will always pick on the nerds, the Goth kids will always poke fun at the

bible-thumpers, and the nerds will laugh at the jokes when they’re making millions of

dollars and the jocks are old and fat. These student classifications have been and are a

part of our American culture. Yes, there are problems associated with this classification

system, but I don’t think that it’s possible to completely erase personality from our

students, and further, would we want to? We have to remember that the benefit of

diversity is that we are not all the same nor do we share the same values. We can have

diversity without having to homogenize the student body. A campus can be diverse and

retain an environment of acceptance without having to force students to portray and

maintain that they all share like values or that they are all equals in their identities

because doing so would hinder the differences in their identities and thinking that gives

power to the change and growth that can occur as a result to many different

perspectives.

If diversity is always imagined in the same ways, it becomes, ironically,

homogenized, and loses its power to unsettle established ways of

thinking. It is good, in and of itself, that students see America reflected in

their classmates, and if it means observing that there’s lots of voluntary

segregation and simmering hatreds going on, so be it. Better that than a

56

lily-white campus in which such issues would never get raised” (Pinsker

9).

Meaningful campus diversity will only take place when it grows naturally out of an

educational experience and education, addresses the reasons other than hatred that

discrimination can occur, does not implore language and methods that single one

groups in the very way the diversity policy wishes to detour, and finally stops using

oppressive-like rhetoric and methods that silence speech, push individuals to the

margins, and govern student action.

57

REFERENCES

“Administrative Policies.” Georgia State University: Dean of Students Office. Georgia

State University. n.d. Web. 20 March 2006. <http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwdos/

codeofconduct_adminpol_b.html>.

Aleman, Ana M. Martinez. "The Search for the Great Community: The Multicultural

Community and Its Problems. Draft." (1998). ERIC. Web. 15 March 2006.

“All-University Regulations Student Conduct Undergrad Handbook Kansas State.” n.d.

Kansas State University. 30 Oct 2008 Web. <http://courses.kstate.edu/

catalog/undergraduate/regulations/>.

Casey, Janet. “Diversity, Discourse, and the Working-Class Student.” Academe 91.4

(2005): 33-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 April 2006.

DeGeorge, Richard T. Academic Freedom and Tenure: Ethical Issues. Maryland:

Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. Print.

Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover Publications, 1958. Print.

Firestone, David. “U. of Georgia Cannot Use Race in Admission Policy, Court Rules”.

AAD Project. Department of English, UCSB. August 2001. Web. 15 October

2008. <http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/firestone1.html>.

Foucault, Michael. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. Print.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. Trans. Myra

Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000. Print.

Frentz, Thomas S. “Rhetorical Conversation, Time, and Moral Action.” Contemporary

Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. Eds. John Lucaites, Celeste Condit, and Sally

Caudill. The Guilford Press: New York, 1999. 288-305. Print.

58

Greenberg, Brad. “Diversity adds little to education, study says: Theory directly

opposes past studies asserting importance of racial variety.” The Daily Bruin.

ASUCLA Student Media. 1 April 2003. Web. 2 November 2008.

<http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/23165/>.

“GSU “Goals and Objectives.” Office for Underrepresented Faculty. Georgia State

University. n.d. Web. 7 July 2008. <http://www2.gsu.edu/

~wwwouf/about/index.html>.

Hanson, Victor Davis. “Profiles in Diversity.” The Claremont Institute for the Study of

Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. Claremont Review of Books. 22 June

2005. Web. 27 March 2006. <http://claremont.org/writings/

crb/summer2005/hanson.html>.

“Hate Speech on Campus.” ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. 31 Dec 1994. Web.

05 April 2006. <http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/

12808pub19941231.html>.

“History of the University” Georgia State University Archives. Georgia State University.

Oct 2001. Web. 15 October 2008. <http://www.library.gsu.edu/spcoll/pages/

pages.asp?ldID=105&guideID=549&ID=3670>.

“History of the University.” Georgia State University Archives. Georgia State University.

July 2006. Web. 15 October 2008. <http://www.uga.edu/legal/

pdfs/DescrimandHarass.pdf>.

Hudson, David L. Jr. “Hate Speech and Campus Speech Codes” First Amendment

Center. First Amendment Center. n.d. Web. 5 March 2008.

<http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/

59

topic.aspx?topic=cam pus_speech_codes

Kaplin, William and Lee, Barbara. The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive

Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making. Jossey - Bass

City, August 2006. Print.

Levine, Arthur. “The Search for American Liberal Education.” Rethinking Liberal

Education. Eds. Nicholas Farnham and Adam Yarmonlinsky. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996. Print.

Mirza, Munira. “How ‘diversity’ breeds division.” Spiked. Signet House. 19 August

2004. Web. 5 March 2006. <http://www.spiked-online.com/

index.php?/site/article/2265/>.

Pinsker, Sanford. “Campus Diversity in Theory and Practice.” Academic Questions Fall

1998: Academic Search Premier. Web.12 April 2006.

Schuck, Peter H. Diversity in America: Keeping Government at a Safe Distance. The

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2003. Print.

Skrentny, John. “US: Whose Land of Opportunity?” Le Monde diplomatique. Wendy

Kristianasen. May 2007. Web. 2 November 2008. <http://74.125.45.104/

search?q=cache:wrNyQiCiL9MJ:mondediplo.com/2007/05/

11usa+US:+Whose+Land+of+Opportunity%3F+colour-

blind+future&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>.

Hofstadter, Richard and Smith, Wilson. American Higher Education: A Documentary

History, Vol. 2. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1961. Print.

“Student Organization Hearing Results: Pi Kappa Alpha.” Georgia State University

Dean of Students. 22 April 2004. Georgia State University. Web. 3 March 2008.

60

<http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwdos/hearings/4_22_pka.html>.

"Tears of an Inflatable Clown.” King of the Hill. FX,,Atlanta. 25 Nov 2007. Television.

“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265.” The Oyez Project

(1978). Web. 30 October 2008. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/

1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/>.

“The University of Georgia Non-Discriminatory and Anti-Harassment Policy” The

University of Georgia. July 2006. Web. 30 October 2008.

<http://www.uga.edu/legal/pdfs/DescrimandHarass.pdf>.

“Vision, Mission, and Goals Statement.” Board of Regents University System of Georgia

June 2008. Web. 15 October 2008. <http://www.usg.edu/

regents/statements.phtml>.

Wander, Philip. “The Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory.”

Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. Eds. John Lucaites, Celeste Condit,

and Sally Caudill. The Guilford Press: New York, 1999. 357-379. Print.